i think these kinds of lists are unfair when you are comparing people who finished their careers with players who are still developing their careers.
in a few years who knows lebron will be in the top 10. we got to see them as a consummate whole and imo i think kobe should be 1 or 2 after his career is done with.

The guy averaged 35/9/7 in the playoffs. What more could he do? Will you give him personal credit if the Cavs get him some quality supporting players and he wins a title then? Or does he have to lead four lumps of shit to a title to get credit?

A dozen of players put up dashing stats every year on bad teams too, all but a handful who later join winning systems where they put up less eyepopping numbers become forgotten. What's your point again?

A dozen of players put up dashing stats every year on bad teams too, all but a handful who later join winning systems where they put up less eyepopping numbers become forgotten. What's your point again?

That's the thing: no one has put up the numbers that he has, especially at his age. You give players individual credit when they join better teams? That's absurd. How about rating players on their individual value added?

Pretty good list. Nice to see Timmy D. getting some love. He is criminally underappreciated due to the lack of flash in his game. I would like to see Olajuwon a couple of places higher. He won two NBA titles with no other stars on his team besides an aging Clyde Drexler on the second title team. I think a lot of people undervalue these titles because Jordan was playing baseball at the time.

That's the thing: no one has put up the numbers that he has, especially at his age. You give players individual credit when they join better teams? That's absurd. How about rating players on their individual value added?

1. Oscar Robertson

2. Basketball is a team game. Rating its participants merely on "individual value added", however flawed it is measured, is absurd.

Also Kunk, you have Stockton with no Malone? My earlier question still remains, how can you put Magic above Kareem when Magic didn't win anything without Kareem? Also, how can you put LBJ above Olajuwon?

2. Basketball is a team game. Rating its participants merely on "individual value added", however flawed it is measured, is absurd.

exactly. it's team game so you should not judge players on how many championships but how they play as individuals. if michael jordan had spent his career with the clippers, he'd have zero titles, but he would have been the same player. why penalize his legacy because of his teammates?

exactly. it's team game so you should not judge players on how many championships but how they play as individuals. if michael jordan had spent his career with the clippers, he'd have zero titles, but he would have been the same player. why penalize his legacy because of his teammates?